Advice to Nichola Dunne-Hanif
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Nichola Dunne-Hanif
- Date advice given
- 6 March 2012
- Enquiry type
I write as a local resident to strongly object to the current proposals regarding the A556.
As a family which will be hugely affected on a daily basis by these changes, we urge you to listen to the opinions of local people. These changes affect our homes, and our ability to travel to and from our local amenities, neighbours and friends. The proposed road is not just a coloured line on a map to us ? it is set to disrupt our lives in many ways.
I attended the Parish Council meetings in 2011 (Millington and High Legh), and there was clearly fierce opposition to the proposals, especially the junction at Millington.
Keep the motorway traffic on the motorway network!
Firstly, we are opposed, along with many local people, to the idea that the new A556 route should be the answer to what is essentially a motorway traffic problem. Our understanding from the Highways Agency is that the Jct 20 option was looked at some years ago, but deemed not viable due to the cost. In today?s terms, what is the cost of this option, compared with the building of a new A556 road? Also, surely some considerable weight must be given to minimising the impact on local residents. Improving junction 20 offers an opportunity to keep motorway traffic on the motorway network, AND minimise the impact on local communities. Surely this is a better option than another dual carriageway, carrying motorway traffic!
With some measures such as improving Jct 20, reducing the current A556 down to 2 lanes, reduced speeds on the A556, changes in signing etc, then most motorway traffic could be kept on the motorway network.
Also, see attached a copy of the joint NW TAR / CPRE letter, which raises serious issues surrounding why the Jct 20 improvement option was dropped and deemed too costly.
We request that the agencies involved look to improving the motorway network at Jct 20 of the M6 and Jct 9 of the M56, to allow motorway drivers to stay on a motorway therefore allowing them to maintain motorway speeds to reduce time by avoiding local traffic and delays on their travels.
If there is a bypass...
With regards to the options 0, 1, 2 and 3 which are now being proposed by the Highways Agency, why is there no simple bypass option? This was clearly voiced as a favourite at meetings between local residents and the Highways Agency representatives, in the event that the new A556 road does go ahead.
The bypass could simply be just that. A bypass between the M56 and M6. Bridges and underpasses could be provided to keep local roads open. The current A556 could remain open, at reduced speeds, allowing access to the M56 and M6 for local residents. This would mean that no additional junctions are needed.
We are being told that the current junction options are for our benefit. If this is so, then why not provide the option that many local residents were asking for? This would hugely reduce the negative impact on local communities, whilst still keeping the M6 to M56 traffic on the new bypass. Instead of dividing opinion with so many options, surely it makes sense to look for an option which would benefit the majority of local residents, but still allow for the main objective of the road to be achieved.
Many people I have spoken to have found the series of options 0-3 in the current proposals both misleading, and unnecessarily complex. Many properties were omitted from the maps in the brochure. Those looking at the proposals are misled to believe that some options, such as option 0 with the Millington junction, will not affect anyone?s home. There are many homes in this area, some of which only metres away from a huge junction. They are not just properties with a price tag ? we live here with our families.
We urge you to consider the improvement to the motorway network as the clear, permanent solution.
Leave the beautiful countryside in this area as it is. We use the local roads to travel to school, local shops and library and to visit friends in High Legh and Lymm. We take our daughter and her friends for walks and bike rides. Our elderly mother who lives with us also goes for regular walks. Some of the options proposed will be devastating to our community. We know that there are many factors to consider, but we urge you to put people and communities at the top of the list.
Advice given
The proposed A556 Knutsford to Bowden Scheme is currently at the pre-application stage of the process. Due to the nature of the planning regime established by the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), at the pre-application stage the IPC is unable to process and respond to comments on the merits of a scheme. This ensures the impartiality of the IPC and protects the interests of all parties involved in the process.
The Highways Agency has recently commenced consultation on their proposals in accordance with the duties which the PA 2008 places upon them. As the PA 2008 process is frontloaded, you may wish to engage with their consultation at this stage. Their project website can be accessed at the following link ? http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14909.aspx
If, following submission of the application, the IPC accepts the application for examination, there will be an opportunity to register your views with the IPC and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and via on site notices. Further project information, including how to register, will also be available on the IPC website at the relevant stage.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. Please find attached hereto a copy of Advice Note 8.2: How to have your say on a major infrastructure proposal. You may also wish to visit our website to view further advice and guidance on the process, on the following link:
http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/ As of 1 April 2012, as part of the Localism Act, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will be abolished and a new National Infrastructure Directorate will be created within the Planning Inspectorate, an agency of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The move to the Planning Inspectorate will be seamless and the examination of applications for major infrastructure projects will not be delayed. You should however note that as from 1 April 2012 any correspondence about major infrastructure projects will be addressed from the National Infrastructure Directorate, Planning Inspectorate. Further information regarding transition arrangement when the IPC is abolished and its functions transfer, is attached hereto.
If you have any queries regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office.